MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083100586 · doi:10.1364/oe.16.002315

Gradient-index optical filter synthesis with controllable and predictable refractive index profiles

2008· article· en· W2083100586 on OpenAlexaff
Xinbin Cheng, Bin Fan, J. A. Dobrowolski, Li Wang, Zhanshan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractive indexApodizationOpticsFourier transformOptical filterMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fourier transform thin film synthesis method often results in solutions that call for indices that lie outside the range of values of the available materials. To make the resulting refractive index profiles always realizable in our meta-mode sputtering machine, a modified Fourier transform synthesis method is proposed with which the reflectance spectra can be accurately synthesized with controllable and predictable refractive index profiles. In our procedure, an optimal phase function is explored to yield acceptable refractive index profiles. Then the overall thickness is estimated using the Parseval theorem. Finally, several errors inherent to the Fourier transform method, including the imprecision of the spectral function, the truncation of the film and the apodization of the refractive index profiles, are compensated by successive corrections to the magnitude of the spectral function. An explicit iterative formula based on the derivative of the magnitude function is proposed for the compensation of the spectral mismatches. We show with a number of examples that, with the proposed method, it is possible to synthesize gradient-index optical filters with almost any desired spectral performance using experimentally realizable refractive indices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207